Is Atheism a threat to Freedom

Post Reply New Topic

In that case you have a very very low opinion of 'Gods Creations' if the only reason a person will aid another is due to "religious principles" (is this a euphemism for; fear of going to hell?), as opposed to an innate sense of co-operation. Given the many acts of complete bastardry with which (according to the bible) God has attempted to teach us his sense of morality, the idea that without religion we would live in an A-moral society astounds me. As Dawkins so eloquently puts it;

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And even in His attempt to clean up His act in the New testament where He tries to teach us to be nice, to love our neighbour as our brother, to do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves yada yada yada God just cant help himself and has his son tortured and mutilated to appease Himself for the sins of his own creation. And you and your ilk reckon that without religion we would be A-moral

Now you hang on there a darn cotton pikin minute, what are ya some kind of commie, leftist, latte drinking, do gooding, vile piece of garbage. I tell you all religionists are there for a Hanging or at the vere least a flogging

@Inuyasha:
1: Should you kill a child who cursed his/her parents?
2: If not, how do you know that you shouldn't?

Inuyasha, you completely ignored my last post. So allow me to rephrase it for you.

Your bible does say gay people should be stoned to death. Just like children who curse their parents (even if from a rational standpoint those parents deserve to be cussed out) as well as women who have premarital sex (this includes rape victims), and Jesus supposedly approves of all of it (at least part-time) as I demonstrated earlier. So what allows you to make the moral judgment that it's not okay to assault people in pro-gay t-shirts? Where is the line drawn for someone who supposedly draws their morality from religion?

I draw my morality from rational thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that it's not okay to assault people for anything, nor is it ever okay to stone people to death. If you agree, even in the slightest, I'd like you to explain to me how you've managed to come to that conclusion without using your own brain's built-in capacity for moral judgment even though your holy book clearly states a different view on the matter.

This is, again, not an attack on Christianity. I've known several Christians who are perfectly nice (even gay-friendly) people. Though they did freely admit to drawing morals from their own rational thinking and not from the text. They did credit God for giving them the ability to think rationally, however, but that's irrelevant to the thread's topic, since atheists clearly have the same ability.

Use wikipedia as a source for sources. The fact anyone can edit wikipedia can also mean it has far more control than other encyclopedias. Usually instead of just ignoring wikipedia content, take a look at the sources it cites.

I didn't ignore it. I didn't say it wasn't a source of sources. I said it wasn't a source of evidence.

Two issues I see:
1) If it has claims that are themselves backed by sources, which is frequent, then it does provide some degree of evidence.
2) "Evidence" is really a rather flimsy term I'd say. Nearly anything can aid in demonstrating the truth of a claim, including the claims of an editable encyclopedia.

Evidence of some things, certainly, but evidence that some dude existed 2000 years ago? It could refer to such evidence, certainly (though it didn't), but it can't itself be evidence that the guy existed. The existence of a wikipedia page doesn't automatically prove conclusively that a guy existed, which seemed to be what Inuyasha was trying to imply, since on the page itself there wasn't even anything referring to evidence verifying the historicity of Jesus, which is what Inuyasha claimed to have in the first place.
I may have been a bit unclear about what I meant. For that I apologize.

Actually, yes, the wikipedia page on Jesus IS evidence of his existence 2000 years ago. If Jesus didn't come to save us from our sins, then Satan would be owning the world, and Satan hates wikipedia.

Touché.
But then again, how does one explain the existence of encyclopedia dramatica?

That's the devil's work... Duh...

That's just what the trolls want you to think.